Messages - gzl

This is a GMAT LR question, which is nearly identical to a LSAT LR question. They say the correct answer's (B), but I think it's (D). What do you guys think the correct answer is?

Thanks in advance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Some species of Arctic birds are threatened by recent sharp increases in the population of snow geese, which breed in the Arctic and are displacing birds of less vigorous species. Although snow geese are a popular quarry for hunters in the southern regions where they winter, the hunting season ends if and when hunting has reduced the population by five percent, according to official estimates. Clearly, dropping this restriction would allow the other species to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Hunting limits for snow geese were imposed many years ago in response to a sharp decline in the population of snow geese. (B) It has been many years since the restriction led to the hunting season for snow geese being closed earlier than the scheduled date. (C) The number of snow geese taken by hunters each year has grown every year for several years. (D) As their population has increased, snow geese have recolonized wintering grounds that they had not used for several seasons. (E) In the snow goose’s winter habitats, the goose faces no significant natural predation.

B seems like the correct response to me. If it's been many years since the restriction affected the closing of the hunting season, then the restriction isn't having an affect on the number of snow geese killed: hunters aren't reaching the limit anyway. Dropping the restriction then would likely have no affect.

D looks like a distractor, and is largely irrelevant. The problem is threats to Arctic bird species, and the wintering grounds of the snow geese are in southern regions. What does their recolonization of southern wintering grounds have to do with threats to birds in the Arctic?

"this non sequitor is to illustrate a point about morally questionable decisions...and intentional...try to use imagery...k.s.m. was tortured...morally questionable...but lives were saved. he was not just anybody...this is k.s.m. we are talking about...so what if they tortured him? was he tortured or coerced...does it really matter if lives were saved? what is the precedent for coercing someone like k.s.m? bombs were dropped on japan...morally questionable...but lives were saved...and we know how prosecution of that ended."

A) I'm not talking about moral standards, I'm talking about legal standards and whether our government is going to be bound by the rule of law. B) Never mind it being morally "questionable" even if it is morally right (which I don't accept) that does not mean it should not be prosecuted, nor does it mean that it should not be illegal. I am perfectly willing to accept that some illegal actions may be morally right or even obligatory given certain situations, and yet remain illegal and punishable, as (for example) the wider ramifications of legalizing torture by statute or by simply not prosecuting it are unpalatable: we cease to be a nation bound by the principles that are the foundation of our constitution. Speaking of bombs being dropped on Japan, what do you call a weapon specifically designed to kill large numbers of civilians? (I'll give you a hint, by definition it's a T...... weapon)

"if k.s.m. was tortured or tickled... congress knew about it...nobody wants to dwell or dig up the past...and if digging up the past that k.s.m. was tortured and congress was briefed...then they are all responsible..."

Yep. And should all suffer the consequences.

"now, if we found out info which saved lives...then getting the info out of k.s.m. however they got it is fine with me...because if they saved lives...the ends justify the means...we don't need anymore airplanes crashing into buildings...or did you forget..."

No, I haven't forgotten. I also haven't forgotten the Khmer Rouge or any number of other images of government that ceases to be bound by its own laws.

"...sorry if my cynicism is too tough for you to handle..."

In my mind, you aren't cynical enough. Rather, a bit wide-eyed and innocent in trusting ends-justify the means arguments when we're talking about the concentrated power of government and betrayal of its own laws.

"face it...obama won and we have some tough times ahead of us...so sorry if aye don't feel that our gov. should waste dollars on a backward...sore sported witch hunt...spending money on investigations and prosecutions is a waste of time and money..."

I'll refrain from bringing up the investigations about stains on a blue dress and comparing the severity of the two issues... oops, guess I didn't. Guess we just have two very different ideas about what constitutes a waste of time and money. I personally don't see holding our own officials to our own laws in fundamental areas like war crimes as such a waste, and in fact think that it's the very root of our democracy remaining just that.

"and obama has a huge agenda...we elected him to get things done in the present...now lets move forward...

here is one for you...is waterboarding torture? that was still under debate up until about two years ago...

this is media driven tripe because the election season is over...smokescreen..."

Actually, it wasn't "still under debate" up until about two years ago. Wing-nuts made it a debate about two years ago. Our own courts called it torture as far back as 1926 (look up U.S. v Lee 744 F.2d 1124, Fisher v State 110 So. 361) Even back then "the water cure" was "a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country." We've prosecuted other country's officers for using it and our own. Maybe you just mis-spoke and meant to say "That wasn't under debate until about two years ago." A simple typo perhaps. No worries, I'm a clumsy typer as well.

"as a side note...what are your thoughts on the death penalty...for or against?"

Against. As another side note, considering your argument is one based on its effectiveness, how effective can it be if ya need to do it 183 times?

So I am considering law school but I was convicted of a drug posession felony 10 years ago, I wasn't selling just simply in posession of a the wrong substance. I did no time for this but served one year probation. Since then I have had to deal with a series of doors being closed in my face because I made a stupid mistake at a party.

From what I understand and according to my state's board of bar examiners the felony conviction does not prohibit me from practicing law but it may prevent it.

When I apply this fall would it be detrimental to bring this to prospective schools attention in my personal statement? All of that is behind me and I have been concentrating on doing good works in the world. Second, if anyone has any firsthand experience about how the bar generally deals these issues it would be appreciated.

The length of time since the conviction is a good thing. The conviction itself wasn't a breach of trust issue, which is in your favor (relatively speaking, of course) You should definitely disclose it on any admissions app that asks, as not disclosing it could make the matter worse when the Bar reviews your moral character evaluation. As far as addressing it in our personal statement, that's a judgment call.

What is the best strategy for the logic games? I am aware that practice makes perfect, but more specifically, is it more beneficial to examine each game/game types, or do sections as one would with RC and LR? I've made copies of some of the games because sometimes I just stare off into space when I see a game in which I have no clue what is going on. Thanks.

How you approach the LG section on the LSAT depends on what your target score is. Alot of people shooting for something like 160 would do better if they just totally ignored one of the games, and spent the full 35 minutes maximizing their effort on the other three. Especially those who are completing all four games ad only getting 50-60% right. As for strategy w/in each game... best thing I can suggest is do the questions that give you specific new information first (they usually start with "if") The work you do in answering those will often help answer the others.

k.s.m was not a gutshot...they knew they had the hand...and he is the reason that this thing will not get prosecuted...

...lives were saved.

and if they tortured k.s.m...so what.

This thing will not get prosecuted because no one in the positon to do anything has the stomach for the divisiveness of the issue. Which is a shame. Divisiveness be damned, confronting these kind of issues and holding our government and ourselves to account for our actions determines whether we're a nation of laws or a nation of gawdknowswhat.

We've prosecuted others in the past for torture, and torture of this type specifically. I don't care about k.s.m.. I care about whether our government tortured him. When a government ceases to be guided by its own laws, we cease to have officials and have, instead, thugs running a fundamentally lawless organization.

if you don't care about k.s.m...then you have answered your own ponderings...if lives were saved...then whether we found out aout it or not is a side dish...

...this thing is not going to be prosecuted...

...aye don't care that k.s.m was tortured or tickled...that's a "woops" for me...

Superprep's explanation of the second game on the Feb 1999 LSAT doesn't make sense to me. Superprep says that if firs are not in the park, then Laurels and Oaks must be in the park. The condition is "if it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces." Wouldn't the contrapositive be if not spruces or firs then laurels or oaks?

Not quite, with the contrapositive. There are a coupla logically equivalent ways to read the first part of the condition. It's not saying "if not laurels and not oaks then..." It's saying "if not both" in other words: if there are not laurels OR not oaks, then...

It's a negation of the "and" set of facts rpresented. two ways to represent that: (.= "and", ^= "or")-(L.O)

-L^-O

(instead of "-L.-O", the negation of which is what you have above, laurels or oaks)

the negation of both of those statements would be: L.O

the second part of the conditional is more straight forward:

F.S

whose negation is: -F^-S (or -(F.S))

the contrapositive for the whole would then be:

-F^-S => L.O

If there are not Firs or not Spruces in the park, then there are Laurels and Oaks in the park.

k.s.m was not a gutshot...they knew they had the hand...and he is the reason that this thing will not get prosecuted...

...lives were saved.

and if they tortured k.s.m...so what.

This thing will not get prosecuted because no one in the positon to do anything has the stomach for the divisiveness of the issue. Which is a shame. Divisiveness be damned, confronting these kind of issues and holding our government and ourselves to account for our actions determines whether we're a nation of laws or a nation of gawdknowswhat.

We've prosecuted others in the past for torture, and torture of this type specifically. I don't care about k.s.m.. I care about whether our government tortured him. When a government ceases to be guided by its own laws, we cease to have officials and have, instead, thugs running a fundamentally lawless organization.

I think it's hard to argue for any kind of "principles" or "dignity" when discussing torture. Our country trains a large group of people to kill others because they are from another country. That's what war is. We blow people up, stab them, shoot them, drop bombs on them, etc. To me, using harsh interrogation techniques is just a nasty side note of this unfortunate reality. It's hard to see the logic in thinking its ok to disembowel somebody on the battlefield, but it's not ok to hold a wet towel on their face. It's all equally horrible.

No, it isn't all equally horrible, actually. For several reasons.

But, perhaps the most important consideration to make is that your characterization of the armed forces is incorrect. Specifically, the part about killing "because they are from another country." I think the worst case phrase should be "interests contrary to the United States."

Furthermore, at least on the battlefield, you have engaged bilaterally. Both sides are equally capable of disemboweling the other. Torture is pure unilateral action.

I would agree, and would also just emphasize what S.B. Anthony spoke of. Even in war there are rules of engagement, legal steps taken before we enter into war (often ignored, unfortunately) etc. For example, there are prosecutable offenses that can happen even during engagement. Torture and extra-legal detention is a contradiction of our own legal principles. As such, they are against state interest by definition, as they contradict the continued existence of the state as a nation of laws.